Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!pew From: pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Market share for DOS database products Message-ID: <73771@brunix.UUCP> Date: 28 Apr 91 17:03:13 GMT References: <71280@brunix.UUCP> <1991Apr18.230012.12838@dbase.A-T.COM> <1991Apr21.004144.16332@welch.jhu.edu> <1991Apr25.205639.2079@dbase.A-T.COM> <73732@brunix.UUCP> <1991Apr28.020220.225@odi.com> Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. Lines: 117 In article <1991Apr28.020220.225@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes: |> In article <73732@brunix.UUCP> pew@cs.brown.edu (Peter E. Wagner) writes: |> |> |> I'd like you to consider your claim that dBASE IV 1.0 was "obviously rushed |> |> to market too soon." What "facts" do you base that statement on, other than |> |> printed reports? I used 1.0 for real applications for almost a year before |> |> switching to alpha 1.1. Have you used 1.0 and did you discover any bugs, |> |> or did you just "lose faith" based on what you heard? |> |> This sounds like the lawyer on LA Law trying to make a good case: "But |> you never actually SAW the man put the gun in your husband's mouth and |> pull the trigger, right? Didn't you say that you were groggy from the |> blows..." |> |> Excuse me. I don't use any of the products under discussion and I |> don't have any opinions or any stakes in the point under dispute. But |> I would like to point out that your reply to Mr. Dallas's question |> isn't very convincing. He asked a pretty straightforward question. |> He wanted to know on what evidence you based your judgement. Instead |> of making any attempt to answer his question, you simply state that it |> is so obvious that there is no need to answer. Perhaps you have |> enough information about the situation that it's obvious to you, but |> it may not be so obvious to everyone else. No I can't cite specific articles or experience. But I've been developing database software for seven years, and as I mentioned I used to be a dBase man. However, the industry passed AT by (technologically), and it is *obvious* that they do not have a competitive product. I know many people in the industry, and I've never heard a good thing said about dBase IV. If it were a truly good product that was worth my time and money, I would expect somebody to speak well of it. I have read that IV 1.1 is adequate now, however, I have a product in FoxPro that is superb and keeps getting better. Adequate is no competition. I need to see something that tells me that dBase is faster and better than FoxPro before I go to look at dBase again. |> |> I presume you aren't really trying to persuade Mr. Dallas; I presume |> you don't really think that you're going to change his opinion about |> this. You're really addressing the other people who read |> comp.databases. If you want to persuade them that your opinion is |> more accurate than his, I think you'd be more effective if you |> presented your evidence. |> |> So did you use 1.1? Did you discover any bugs? If you didn't do it |> first hand, you must have heard about it from somewhere else. Was |> that somewhere else the press, or something other than the press? I |> think these are fair questions, and I'd be interested to hear your |> answers. See above. |> |> Do the software reviewers give Paradox |> consistently high marks, consistently much higher than dBase, because |> there is some sort of conspiracy? Man, you guys really are paranoid, |> aren't you? |> |> Similarly, stripped of the sarcastic tone, this is a fair question for |> Mr. Dallas to address. He said that "it was market perceptions that |> affected the bottom line, not technical imperfections." Now, the most |> obvious cause of negative perceptions is negative reality, but that's |> not necessarily the only cause. So, the interesting question is if |> there weren't significant technical imperfections, why did negative |> market perceptions arise? |> |> Distribution channels?! |> Since when has this been a problem for AT? |> |> (He didn't say that it was. He was speaking in general, about reasons |> that software products can have problems other than technical |> inferiority. I don't think he meant to imply that Dbase itself has |> this problem.) |> |> Superior products speak for themselves to those who are qualified to |> judge the differences. The developer community is a good barometer. |> |> So is it your position that the majority of product buyers (or 44%, or |> whatever the market share is) are not qualified to judge the |> difference? If so, then I think you're actually agreeing with Mr. |> Dallas's main point, which is that product success is not necessarily |> determined solely by "technical superiority". And at first it seemed |> to me that you weren't agreeing about anything... The fact that AT still has 55% market share is evidence that the majority of product buyers are not qualified to judge the difference. But it is not the customer's fault. It is sellers fault and the distributors fault. These people care about $, not promoting good software technology. dBase still has name recognition, and in a field where many customers are intimidated by computers alone, there is something reassuring about a product that you've heard about and that you know many people have already used. They are also big, and size alone often generates sales. Mr. Dallas should not be complaining about a product's success being determined by "technical superiority". I'm am certain that AT's dominant market share would quickly dwindle if this were the case. What evidence do I have? The developer community's feedback. In my opinion, these are the qualified judges. I would like to apoligize for the tone of my previous follow-up. It was definitely more caustic than it needed to be. Yes, I was disturbed by AT's gloating over its recent court victory. However, I agree that this forum should not be used for shooting petty barbs. Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter E. Wagner (401)863-7685 pew@cs.brown.edu Department Computer Science Box 1910 pew@BROWNCS.BITNET Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 uunet!brunix!pew Woody Allen when asked if he thought sex was dirty; `If you do it right.' ----------------------------------------------------------------